Yet C++ programmers, if they look closely enough, can find a little bit of functional programming in their language. Hidden in the C++ specification is a tiny aspect of functional programming. It occurs in C++ constructor initializers.
Initializers are specifications for the initialization of member variables in a constructor. The C++ language provides for default initialization of member variables; initializers override these defaults and let the programmer specific actions.
Given the class:
class MyInts {
private:
int a1_;
int a2_;
public:
MyInts(void);
}
one can store two integers in an object of type MyInts. The old-style C++ method is to provide 'setter' and 'getter' functions to allow the setting and retrieval of values. Something like:
class MyInts {
private:
int a1_;
int a2_;
public:
MyInts(void);
void setA1(int a1) { a1_ = a1; };
int getA1(void) const { return a1_; };
void setA2(int a2) { a2_ = a2; };
int getA2(void) const { return a2_; };
}
The new-style C++ (been around for years, though) dispenses with the 'setter' functions and uses initializers and parameters in the constructor:
class MyInts {
private:
int a1_;
int a2_;
public:
MyInts(int a1, int a2) : a1_(a1), a2_(a2) {};
int getA1(void) const { return a1_; };
int getA2(void) const { return a2_; };
}
private:
int a1_;
int a2_;
public:
MyInts(int a1, int a2) : a1_(a1), a2_(a2) {};
int getA1(void) const { return a1_; };
int getA2(void) const { return a2_; };
}
Initializers are interesting. One cannot do just anything in an initializer. You can provide a constant value. You can provide a constructor for a class (if your member variable is an object). You can call a function that provides a value, but it should be either a static function (not a member function) or a function outside of the class. (Calling a member function on the same class is an undefined operation. It may work, or it may not.)
These restrictions on initializers enforce one of the attributes of functional programming: immutable objects. In my example, I eliminated the 'setter' functions to may objects of MyInts immutable, but that was an intentional effect. I could have left the 'setter' functions in place, and then objects of MyInts would be mutable.
Initializers brook no such nonsense. You have one opportunity to set the value for a member variable (you cannot initialize a member variable more than once). Once it is set, it cannot be changed, during the initialization. You cannot call a function that has a side effect of changing a member variable that has been previously set. (Such a call would be to a member function, and while permitted by the compiler, you should avoid them.)
Initializers provide a small bit of functional programming inside C++. Who would have thought?
Technically, the attributes I have described are not functional programming, but merely immutable objects. Functional programming allows one to treat functions as first class citizens of the language, creating them and passing them to other functions as needed. The initializers in C++ do not allow such constructs.
